EDILBERTO DELIMA, NENITA DACILLO, AND ATTY. QUIRINO N. ORIEL, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE PEDRO P. GALLARDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF 13TH JUDICI…

Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction to review the order of respondent Hon. Pedro P. Gallardo, then Judge
of the Circuit Criminal Court of the 13th Judicial District, Tacloban City,
dated August 8, 1975,
denying petitioners’ motion to inhibit respondent Judge from further hearing
Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-XIII-12 and 13-L s. ’75 and his order dated August 12, 1975, in the same criminal
cases, declaring petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel in
contempt of court, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Two Hundred Pesos
(P200.00) and an imprisonment of twenty (20) days.

After a temporary restraining order was issued by this Court’s
(2nd Division) resolution of September 3, 1975, and after respondent Judge has
filed his comment on the petition, this case was referred to the First Division
(resolution of October 24, 1975), and was given due course on March 29,
1976.  Both parties submitted the case
for decision without briefs.

Petitioner Edilberto Delima is the incumbent Barrio Treasurer of Zone I, Poblacion, Capoocan, Leyte; petitioner Nenita
Dacillo was a former high school teacher of the Capoocan Community
High School, who during her
incumbency was assigned by District Supervisor Mabini
Madriaga as teacher-collector to collect dues from
students of the Capoocan
High School.

Sometime in 1973, Barrio Council of Zone I, Poblacion,
Capoocan, Leyte,
promulgated Resolution No. 6, requiring District Supervisor Mabini
Madriaga and his wife, Elementary School Principal
Angeles Madriaga, both of the Capoocan
Elementary School, to deposit all collections and funds pertaining to the Capoocan Community High School, and to render an accounting
of all collections, funds and expenditures, purchases and disbursements made by
said spouses.  Because of the failure of
the Madriaga couple to comply with Resolution No. 6,
the Barrio Council of Zone I, through its Barrio Captain, Jesus Near, filed
with the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte a complaint
against them for malversation of public funds.  Edilberto Delima testified against them.

After conducting the necessary preliminary investigation, the
Provincial Fiscal of Leyte filed a complaint for malversation of public funds against the Madriaga couple and against petitioners Edilberto
Delima and Nenita Dacillo.  (Criminal
Cases Nos. 500 and 501, originally filed with the
Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch VI, Carigara).

On February 4, 1975, Executive Judge Jesus N. Borromeo
issued an order transferring said Criminal Cases Nos. 500 and 501 to the
Circuit Criminal Court of the 13th Judicial District (Tacloban,
Leyte), presided by respondent Judge Pedro P.
Gallardo.  Criminal Case No. 500 was
designated CCC-XIII-12-L s. ’75 and Criminal Case No. 501 as CCC-XIII-13-L s.
’75.

Accused spouses Mabini Madriaga and Angeles Madriaga
were arraigned on March 7, 1975,
while petitioners, Edilberto Delima
and Nenita Dacillo were
arraigned on March 10, 1975.  All the accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge.

Without much ado, the respondent Judge dismissed the criminal
cases for malversation of public funds against Mabini Madriaga and Angeles Madriaga but not against petitioners Edilberto
Delima and Nenita Dacillo.  After the
cases against the Madriaga couple were dismissed
Barrio Captain Jesus Near, upon being assured by the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte that the two criminal cases against the Madriaga couple could no longer be revived because of
double jeopardy, filed a complaint action against respondent Judge for
knowingly rendering an unjust decision. 
Said complaint was given due course by the Chief Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice (1st Indorsement, dated June 20, 1975).  The Provincial Fiscal of Leyte
was instructed by the Chief Prosecutor to endorse the case to the Fiscal of Tacloban City who has jurisdiction over the case.  Barrio Captain Jesus Near also filed an
administrative complaint for “partiality” against respondent Judge
before this Court on July 7, 1975, which complaint was given due course.

During the pendency of the criminal
complaint and the administrative complaint against respondent Judge, he called
for hearing Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-XIII-12 and 13-L s. ’75 with respect to
petitioners Edilberto Delima
and Nenita Dacillo, whose
charge for malversation of funds remained
pending.  It was during said hearing when
petitioners Edilberto Delima
and Nenita Dacillo, thru
their counsel, petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel,
filed a motion to inhibit respondent Judge from further hearing the two
criminal cases against them on the ground that:

“the accused Edilberto
Delima being principal witness of a complaint of
Jesus Near in a criminal case now pending for appropriate action by the City
Fiscal of Tacloban against the Honorable Presiding
Judge of this Honorable Court, and having executed supporting affidavit in the
same case, it is honestly believed that prejudice against him has already been
developed in the mind of the Honorable Presiding Judge and hence he cannot be
expected to decide this case with strictest objectivity and with dispassion.”

After reading the verified motion for
inhibition, the respondent Judge issued in open court an order dated August 8, 1975, denying the same and
ordering petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel to submit
a written explanation within a period of three days from August 8, 1975, why he should not be dealt with
for direct contempt of court.

On August 9, 1975,
petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel filed an urgent
motion for the respondent Judge to reconsider his order of August 8, 1975, so that the 3-day period given to
him to submit his written explanation would commence from the day he received
said order, that is, from August 11,
1975.  However, said motion
was summarily denied on the very day it was filed.

On August 11, 1975, petitioner Atty. Quirino
N. Oriel filed a manifestation stating that the contents of his motion for
inhibition are not contumacious and therefore he cannot be held liable for
direct contempt but respondent Judge, in his order dated August 12, 1975,
declared Atty. Quirino N. Oriel guilty of direct
contempt and sentenced him to pay a fine of P200.00 and an imprisonment of 20
days.  Said order was, however, modified
later by reducing the imprisonment to 10 days, instead of 20 days.

There are two (2) main issues to be resolved in this
petition.  The first refers to the
question of whether respondent Judge should inhibit himself from continuing to
try the aforementioned criminal cases against petitioners Edilberto
Delima and Nenita Dacillo and the second to the question as to whether the
motion to inhibit respondent Judge filed by petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel is contumacious as to make him liable for
direct contempt.

As far as the first issue is concerned, the question is now moot
and academic because respondent Judge has ceased to be a judge of the Criminal
Circuit Judge of the 13th Judicial District with office at Tacloban,
Leyte when his resignation was
accepted by the President of the Philippines
on September 15, 1975.

Anent the second issue there is nothing in the motion for inhibition
of the respondent Judge that will cast disrepute, disrespect or contempt
against the respondent Judge.  Petitioner
Atty. Quirino N. Oriel in a respectful manner, simply
stated in his motion for inhibition that the accused Edilberto
Delima being a principal witness of Jesus Near in the
criminal case filed against respondent Judge pending appropriate action by the
City Fiscal of Tacloban he honestly believed that
respondent Judge would be prejudiced against him and therefore cannot be
expected to decide the case with “objectivity and dispassion.”
Contempt of court may be either direct or constructive.  It is direct when committed in the presence
of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt proceedings before
the same (Section 1, Rule 71, Rules of Court) and constructive or indirect
contempt is one committed out or not in the presence of court (Narcida vs. Bowen, 22 Phil. 365).  It is an act done in a distance which tends
to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court and justice
(70 C.J.S. 6).  It is tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge
as to interrupt the administration of justice (De Joya
vs. CFI, 52 O.G. 6150).  In the motion
for inhibition filed by petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel,
We find no disrespectful language or phrase containing offensive personalities
against the respondent Judge.  What is
stated in the motion is simply a motion of the petitioner for the judge to
inhibit himself from further trying the aforementioned criminal cases because
he believed that the judge could no longer decide the case with impartiality
because of a criminal complaint Jesus Near filed against respondent Judge.  In the case of Austria vs. Masaquel, G.R. No.
L-22536, August 31, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that when a person
impelled by justifiable apprehension and acting in a respectful manner, asks a
judge to inhibit himself from hearing his case, is not guilty of contempt.  Petitioner Atty. Quirino
N. Oriel is similarly situated.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order of respondent Judge
finding petitioner Atty. Quirino N. Oriel guilty of
direct contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of P200.00 and to imprisonment
of ten (10) days, is hereby set aside. 
The restraining order issued by this Court to restrain respondent Judge
from trying Criminal Cases CCC-XIII-12 and 13-L s. ’75 being no longer
necessary, is hereby lifted.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Antonio, and
Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.